總體經濟學 about MPk & MPl - 經濟

By Skylar Davis
at 2008-11-12T01:46
at 2008-11-12T01:46
Table of Contents
來源: (例如: XX 年度高考, XX 年度研究所考)
清大趙相科教授前年考古題
科目:
總體經濟學
問題:
Suppose oil prices fall temporarily, as oil becomes more plentiful.
What impact is this likely to have on the production function, the
marginal products of labor and capital,labor demand, empolyment, and
the real wage.
我的想法:
我認為oil屬於k,而且為正常要素(非劣等)K供給上升,Ks右移,所以Pk下降、k*上升
by 邊際產出遞減法則,所以MPk下降(同一條Kd 應該沒問題)
如果K跟L為要素替代品,實質所得不變之下,K上升,Ld左移,L下降、W下降
不同條Ld 所以邊際產出遞減法則不能用...MPl unknow (冏了)
假設短期物價指數不變,實質工質下降
然後...L下降 K上升 Y = Af(L,K) 上升還下降我冏了...
直覺當然是產出增加,但是我沒有明確證據..(我可能哪邊觀念弄錯了)
如果K跟L為要素互補品,那產出就沒問題了,
K和L都上升,MPk下降,MPl還是unknow...,產出增加 Ld右移,實資工資上升
嗯..我的想法果然很多答案湊不出來..or哪邊有人能幫我補正一下 謝謝
冏的是...考古題上面的答案(還被打對)...跟我結論幾乎完全相反
1. oil上升 ==> the productIVITY (A) 上升 (石油供給跟技術有關?)
so, production function increases (不是說A上升 怎又變成function increase)
2. MPk = δY/δK , so δK constants, δY increase => MPk increase
MPl = δY/δL , so δL constants, δY increase => MPl increase
這整段結論幾乎和我相反以外...我覺得倒果為因(我的錯覺?)
3.when productivity increases, Y = Af(K,L) increase. => MPk increase
if after oil increase, MPl>w,so the firm will increase the worker untill
MPl=w
=>Labor demand increase
else if after oil increase, MPl<= MCl labor demand constants
(好像是MRPl>w會increase labor吧
而且這個好像是解釋Ld負斜率,而不是這個題目要的一般均衡解吧?
直能解釋move 而非shift 感覺整個怪異
&小於的情況,應要減產 而不是不變)
4.對 employment 無影響
(結論不是labor increase...又變掛了@@?)
5. real wage = nominal wage / price of one unit of output = MPl
so the real wage increases.
(這好像也不太妥,倒果為因的感覺,
要說也是MPl右移所以real wage increase)
嗯 結果 考卷上更正的答案(應該是助教改的) 只有
oil increase, so MPl increase,and then Ld shift right,
so the real wage increase, labor increase,means the employment increase.
這是十分,只被扣了兩分...我該說助教是個好人?
抱歉...以上用字有點酸...當成我考試快瘋了的complain吧~"~
重點是...我寫不出答案啊...我不認同他的答案 自已卻擠不出完整的答案
助教的答案 oil increase, MPl increase Ld shift reight的結論也跟我完全不一樣
到底哪邊是因 哪邊是果 我快搞混分不清了...
有高手可以幫忙解惑一下嗎~"~ 謝謝...
--
清大趙相科教授前年考古題
科目:
總體經濟學
問題:
Suppose oil prices fall temporarily, as oil becomes more plentiful.
What impact is this likely to have on the production function, the
marginal products of labor and capital,labor demand, empolyment, and
the real wage.
我的想法:
我認為oil屬於k,而且為正常要素(非劣等)K供給上升,Ks右移,所以Pk下降、k*上升
by 邊際產出遞減法則,所以MPk下降(同一條Kd 應該沒問題)
如果K跟L為要素替代品,實質所得不變之下,K上升,Ld左移,L下降、W下降
不同條Ld 所以邊際產出遞減法則不能用...MPl unknow (冏了)
假設短期物價指數不變,實質工質下降
然後...L下降 K上升 Y = Af(L,K) 上升還下降我冏了...
直覺當然是產出增加,但是我沒有明確證據..(我可能哪邊觀念弄錯了)
如果K跟L為要素互補品,那產出就沒問題了,
K和L都上升,MPk下降,MPl還是unknow...,產出增加 Ld右移,實資工資上升
嗯..我的想法果然很多答案湊不出來..or哪邊有人能幫我補正一下 謝謝
冏的是...考古題上面的答案(還被打對)...跟我結論幾乎完全相反
1. oil上升 ==> the productIVITY (A) 上升 (石油供給跟技術有關?)
so, production function increases (不是說A上升 怎又變成function increase)
2. MPk = δY/δK , so δK constants, δY increase => MPk increase
MPl = δY/δL , so δL constants, δY increase => MPl increase
這整段結論幾乎和我相反以外...我覺得倒果為因(我的錯覺?)
3.when productivity increases, Y = Af(K,L) increase. => MPk increase
if after oil increase, MPl>w,so the firm will increase the worker untill
MPl=w
=>Labor demand increase
else if after oil increase, MPl<= MCl labor demand constants
(好像是MRPl>w會increase labor吧
而且這個好像是解釋Ld負斜率,而不是這個題目要的一般均衡解吧?
直能解釋move 而非shift 感覺整個怪異
&小於的情況,應要減產 而不是不變)
4.對 employment 無影響
(結論不是labor increase...又變掛了@@?)
5. real wage = nominal wage / price of one unit of output = MPl
so the real wage increases.
(這好像也不太妥,倒果為因的感覺,
要說也是MPl右移所以real wage increase)
嗯 結果 考卷上更正的答案(應該是助教改的) 只有
oil increase, so MPl increase,and then Ld shift right,
so the real wage increase, labor increase,means the employment increase.
這是十分,只被扣了兩分...我該說助教是個好人?
抱歉...以上用字有點酸...當成我考試快瘋了的complain吧~"~
重點是...我寫不出答案啊...我不認同他的答案 自已卻擠不出完整的答案
助教的答案 oil increase, MPl increase Ld shift reight的結論也跟我完全不一樣
到底哪邊是因 哪邊是果 我快搞混分不清了...
有高手可以幫忙解惑一下嗎~"~ 謝謝...
--
Tags:
經濟
All Comments

By Agnes
at 2008-11-15T18:34
at 2008-11-15T18:34

By Ethan
at 2008-11-17T15:42
at 2008-11-17T15:42

By Ethan
at 2008-11-19T09:37
at 2008-11-19T09:37

By Zenobia
at 2008-11-24T00:46
at 2008-11-24T00:46

By Charlotte
at 2008-11-24T09:10
at 2008-11-24T09:10

By Anthony
at 2008-11-25T22:18
at 2008-11-25T22:18

By Belly
at 2008-11-29T23:49
at 2008-11-29T23:49

By Rosalind
at 2008-12-02T08:11
at 2008-12-02T08:11

By Tristan Cohan
at 2008-12-06T19:05
at 2008-12-06T19:05

By Agatha
at 2008-12-09T08:43
at 2008-12-09T08:43

By Rosalind
at 2008-12-11T10:33
at 2008-12-11T10:33

By Hamiltion
at 2008-12-16T07:32
at 2008-12-16T07:32

By Ingrid
at 2008-12-19T23:30
at 2008-12-19T23:30
Related Posts
為什麼即時通訊軟體不用錢

By Steve
at 2008-11-12T00:17
at 2008-11-12T00:17
胡思亂想

By William
at 2008-11-10T22:47
at 2008-11-10T22:47
克魯曼專欄》道德正確也是經濟正確

By Anthony
at 2008-11-10T11:49
at 2008-11-10T11:49
郎咸平:宏調政策是錯誤的

By Regina
at 2008-11-10T11:21
at 2008-11-10T11:21
solow成長模型

By Puput
at 2008-11-09T22:25
at 2008-11-09T22:25